01.01. PRAYING THROUGH THE SON

1. PRAYING THROUGH THE SON There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5)

One of the first things that you must know about prayer is that you do not have access to God unless you are a Christian. Prayer is not just about what you say, but an important aspect of it is where you stand in relation to God. The enemy of God clearly does not have the same privileges in prayer as the friend of God. Since the Bible teaches that the only way a person can have a right relationship with God is through Jesus Christ, only prayers offered by a Christian are acceptable to God. Relating prayer to the Trinitarian God portrayed in Scripture, this means that only prayers presented through God the Son, Jesus Christ, are acceptable to God the Father.

Some have proposed the absurd and unbiblical interpretation of the exclusivity of Christianity so as to say that Christ has made access to God possible for humanity in general so that even a non-Christian may pray to God through him in a certain sense. "Of course Jesus Christ is the only way to God," they may acknowledge, "but this means that if you are a sincere Muslim or Buddhist, you are saved through Christ." Not all of them would say it in these words, but this is what their theory amounts to. However, this is clearly a rejection of scriptural teaching on the subject, only that these people do not want to be explicit about it.

Thus by "Jesus Christ," I do not mean an abstract principle or spirit of "Christ" that is detached from the historical Jesus in the Bible or from his identity as the second person of the Trinity. What I mean is that short of a conscious and explicit affirmation of what the Scripture says about the historical person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, no one can have access to God. In other words, if you do not explicitly affirm the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and that these doctrines contradict all other religions, then you are not a Christian, and you do not have access to God. You are not acceptable to God, and you will suffer endless torment in hell after death. This is what Scripture teaches, and this is what I mean. Just as you cannot say that you are a Christian if you believe that there is more than one God, do not say that you are a Christian if you think that Muslims will go to heaven, or that Buddhists in some sense have access to God through Christ. The Bible says that God has chosen some people to be saved, and those whom he has chosen will approach him, but only through Jesus Christ. All others are excluded and condemned.8 That is, only true Christians are saved and have access to God, and all non-Christians are condemned to hell and do not have access to God. This is what the Bible teaches, and this is Christianity. If you disagree with it, then you have rejected Christianity, and I challenge you to refute it. If you claim that this is only my interpretation of Christianity, then at least you must refute me.9 It is dishonest and irrational to dismiss this view just because you do not like it ­ - suppressing the truth is one of the major sins by which countless individuals will be condemned forever (Romans 1:18-19). Maybe you agree with what I have said, but you do not think that it should be stated so bluntly. If this is what you think, then you must also offer arguments to establish your claim.

There are those who insist that all religions are essentially the same. They do not say that all the beliefs of all the religions are identical, but they are saying that they are similar enough on the most important matters so that it is at least possible for different religions to unite, that one religion should not challenge another one as false, and that no religion should claim to be exclusively true so that all the others are false. I will mention only several problems with this view.

It is impossible to define religion in a way that includes all the thought systems that these people want to include, or exclude those that they want to exclude. For example, if I define religion as "the service or worship of God or the supernatural,"10 then this may exclude some forms of Buddhism. But those who say that all religions are essentially the same usually want to include Buddhism.

I may change my definition to, "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith,"11 which should be broad enough to include Buddhism, but then I cannot exclude communism. Another dictionary gives a similar possible definition: "any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc.,"12 and with this gives humanism as an example. But if we include communism and humanism as religions, then we must also include totalitarianism and democracy. But are communism, totalitarianism, and democracy essentially the same? And are all these essentially the same with Buddhism and Christianity? For the sake of simplicity, I have given examples only from the dictionaries. Although texts on the philosophy of religion are more detailed in their attempts to define religion, their efforts fail to overcome the difficulties illustrated. The point is that no matter how our opponents define religion, the definition is either going to be too narrow or too broad for their purpose ­ - they are going to include certain systems that they want to exclude, or they are going to exclude certain systems that they want to include. The difficulty exists because the various religions are not essentially the same; they contradict one another on many essential points. The implication is that not all of them can be correct, and thus it is impossible to unite them.13 A more productive project would be to identify and clarify the beliefs of each religion, and examine each one to see which ones are true and which ones are false.

Since Christianity claims to be the only true worldview,14 if it is indeed a true worldview, then its claim to be the only truth is also true, and all other worldviews are therefore false. On the other hand, if any non-Christian worldview is true, then Christianity is false. Therefore, any adherent to a non-Christian worldview must squarely face Christianity and defeat it, and any Christian must be prepared to demolish any non-Christian worldview. To make the worldviews appear to be in essential agreement when they are in essential disagreement is dishonest, ignorant, and irrational.15 When people say that all religions are essentially the same, they are usually only thinking of a non-foundational aspect of the religions, or an aspect that is foundational to some, but non-foundational to others. But then they are no longer comparing the essential points of the various religions. For example, if the claim is that all religions are essentially the same because they all teach people to strive toward goodness, then my objection would be that ethics is not the foundation of the biblical worldview, even if it is an important aspect. Christian ethics is founded on Christian metaphysics; that is, what the Bible teaches about morality depends on what the Bible teaches about reality. Without the biblical view of reality, there is no foundation for the biblical view of morality.

Therefore, the biblical view of reality is the more essential aspect of the Christian worldview. However, in the list of worldviews usually included by those who say that all religions are essentially the same, we find various different and contradictory views of reality. Some affirm monotheism, others affirm polytheism and pantheism. Some even affirm naturalistic atheism.

Thus to say that both Buddhism and Christianity teach people to be good does not establish any essential similarity between the two systems, but merely hides the essential differences. Christianity affirms as its essential claims that God is a Trinity, that Christ is both God and man, and that Scripture is infallible. There are others, but these three beliefs are enough to exclude all non-Christian systems, and to establish that Christianity is essentially contradictory to all non-Christian worldviews, including Judaism.16

Many of those who say that all religions are essentially the same tend to emphasize what they perceive as similarities in the area of ethics. I disagree with this approach, because as I have shown above, different religions may construct their ethics upon different views of metaphysics (or reality), which to them is more foundational. One does not have the right to dictate to all the religions what is essential to them and what is not. Rather, we must allow each religion to specify its central claims. If I say that monotheism17 is foundational to my religion,18 then you have no right to say that it is not foundational to my religion. And you would be mistaken to say that my monotheistic religion is essentially the same with another person’s polytheistic religion, even if our systems of ethics are identical.19

However, Christian ethics is not identical to non-Christian ethics. They are not even similar. You may say that all religions direct people to walk in love and goodness. First, this is not true. The ethical aims and directives of various religions are often very different. Second, how do you define love and goodness? The Bible says that love is the fulfillment of the biblical moral laws, so that if you walk in love, you will obey the commands in the Bible. But if your religion defines love differently, as all non-biblical religions must do, then whatever you call love is not what the Bible calls love. Therefore, it is impossible to say that all religions direct people to walk in love, since even though you attempt to use the same word to describe their moral directives, they are not similar at all, and there is no common concept of love. The very first of the Ten Commandments demands exclusive worship of the Christian God. Therefore, from a biblical viewpoint, it is immoral and sinful to be a non-Christian. Now, who are you to say that this is not an essential belief in Christianity? It is just as essential as the commandment against murder, and much more important and foundational, since even the commandment against murder is founded upon the exclusive authority of God. Now, do all religions have as their essential belief that they are to worship only the Christian God? If not, then how are they the same with Christianity?

It may be possible under both democracy and communism to affirm that there are such things as red roses, but that does not mean that democracy and communism are the same, or even similar to each other, because they differ on the essential points. Those who attempt to unite all religions arbitrarily choose certain points that they perceive to be common to all religions, and then make these points the essential points of all religions. But they have no right to dictate and specify the essential points of all religions, and even on those points that they think all religions agree, the various religions in fact do not agree. The truth is that the various religions are different, and they contradict one another on many essential and non-essential points. Therefore, not all religions can be true. Since Christianity says that all other religions are false, if we can show that Christianity is true, then even this pronouncement about all non-Christian religions is true, and thus we have also shown that all non-Christian religions are false. My exclusive view is unpopular today, even among those who call themselves Christians. However, popularity does not indicate whether a particular belief is true or false. A common objection against exclusive religion is that it is arrogant to say that my own position is the only correct one, and that all who disagree with me are wrong.20 But what is your definition of arrogance? If Christianity itself asserts that I must accept it to be the only true religion and consider all non-Christian religions to be false, then under Christianity I am not arrogant to take such an exclusive position. You can only call me arrogant based on a non-Christian standard. If so, then you must establish the non-Christian worldview by which you call me arrogant to be true, and that Christianity is false. If you fail to do this, then you have no authority to call me arrogant. In addition, the claim that there is not one exclusively true religion is itself a universal judgment about all religions, thus you are imposing your own view on all religions, saying that not one of them may claim to be exclusively true. You are saying that only your view about the various religions is correct (that no one religion is exclusively true), and that all who believe otherwise are mistaken. This is arrogant according to your own standard.

I may give a similar response to the charge that it is narrow-minded to say that only my view is correct, and all who disagree with me are wrong. But why is it bad to be narrow- minded? By what standard do you determine that to be narrow-minded is bad, and then impose that label on me? If Christianity is indeed exclusively true, then it would be a good thing to be "narrow-minded." That is, if only Christianity is true, then it would be good to believe that only Christianity is true, whether you call that narrow-minded or not. But if Christianity is exclusively true, and you remain open-minded about the issue, then you are not affirming the truth, and you are the one who has a problem. The people who use the charges of arrogance, narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and the like, are in fact employing a name-calling tactic that, if successful, enables them to avoid facing the real questions. Is Christianity exclusively true or not? If not, you do not need to call me names ­ - just refute me, and that will be the end of it. Since I perceive that name-callers are trying to avoid confrontation, I can also play the name-calling game and say that they are idiots and cowards, and we can go back and forth forever without facing the real questions. If you disagree with the claim that Christianity is the only true religion, and that all non-Christians will be condemned to endless torment in hell, all you have to do is to confront my arguments and refute the claim.

Even many professing Christians would consider me too harsh, but this is because they have been affected by non-Christian standards of right conduct. If the apostle Paul could tell the opposing Jews to castrate themselves (Galatians 5:12),21 then I am already being quite mild.22 Many of the Christian writers who affirm that only Christianity is true nevertheless sound reluctant to bluntly state this belief, and they are just as reluctant to clearly state its implication, that if only Christianity is true, then all non-Christian religions are false. They grudgingly affirm the exclusivity of Christianity, as if they resent the Bible for containing such a teaching. This attitude is sinful. Instead, they ought to embrace and defend the words of Scripture with force and with joy. Anything less indicates an unscriptural empathy to false religions and sinful humanity at the expense of faithfulness to Christ.

You will have to read some of my other books to see my arguments for Christianity,23 but what I have established here is that the various religions are essentially different and opposed to one another. Therefore, if you claim to be a Christian, then by necessary implication, you are also saying that all non-Christian religions are false, and that all non-Christians will be condemned to endless torment in hell. If you have a problem with this, then you should examine to see if you have truly affirmed Christianity, for if you disagree with Christ and the apostles, then on what grounds do you claim to be a Christian? Jesus says, "He who is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30). If you are not a Christian, then you are not just non-Christian in your beliefs, but you are anti-Christian. This is the way it is, whether you like it or not. In the context of church government, one who affirms religious pluralism and the legitimacy of non-Christian religions or worldviews should have the implications of such a belief shown to him. The church should make clear to such a person what the Bible teaches on the subject. After that, if the person refuses to change his mind, then he should be excommunicated, or expelled from the church. We must begin to realize that believing false doctrine is much more sinful and destructive than something like murder or prostitution. False doctrine is a much greater evil than these other things, and we must protect the flock by removing those who insist on affirming unbiblical ideas: "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough" (Galatians 5:9). One reason why much of the church is so weak today is a lack of swift discipline.

Since I have established the exclusive truth of Christianity elsewhere, and since I have exposed the absurdity of asserting the essential unity of all religions, we may proceed with the assumption that Christianity is exclusively true, and that all non-Christian religions are false. Thus we may with greater appreciation return to the teaching stated earlier, that only Christians may offer prayers that are acceptable to God. Putting this another way, for one’s prayer to be acceptable, he must have a right relationship with God, but to have a right relationship with God, he must first have a right relationship with the designated mediator between God and humanity. The only mediator between God and humanity is Jesus Christ, who is both God and man. We are not talking about some general principle of Christ or the "spirit" of Christ, but the historical Jesus of Nazareth, God the Son who took upon himself human attributes, who died for his people and was raised from the dead. You cannot be a Muslim or Buddhist and say that you are somehow praying through Christ. You cannot say that you can be a Mormon or Hindu, but as long as you pray with a certain attitude or spirit, you are praying through Christ. You cannot say that Christ is somehow the mediator of all these religions. No, the Bible requires that you acknowledge by name the historical Jesus of Nazareth, who is both God and man, and who is the sole mediator between God and humanity. He is the only way to God; all other roads lead to endless torment in hell.

Some groups that claim to affirm the Christian faith suggest that saints and angels may act as mediators between God and humanity, so that they may appeal to, say, Mary the mother of Jesus for help and for intercession. This is a direct rejection of scriptural teaching. 1 Timothy 2:5 says that there is only one mediator, not two or three, or three hundred. There is only one. Outside of Jesus Christ, there is no access to God at all. Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and humanity, but he does not give to all humans proper access to God. Rather, through him only Christians have access to God the Father in prayer and worship.